Would like to know more of how it came to his attention. If a fake, I would think it would have been shown off immediately, or retaken for a better effect. It does look a bit odd. But how can we be so positive of what it should look like? The shorter arm on the right side seems to be the result of the creature hunching it up and leaning a bit, perhaps the result of uneven ground. At least it is more debateable than some of the more recent obvious fakes that have surfaced.

Looks a bit strange, I can almost see a shirt. It doesn’t look like it’s covered with hair which is pretty much a given with most sightings. But you can pretty much see anything with this bad qaulity. Talking about 70’s sightings anyone ever heard of a certain Dr. Baddour and his zoobies. I live near the alleged sighting and I was going to look into it. Anyone know anything not in the BFRO report that would help?

The monochromatic palette makes it really hard to tell, for instance, where the “head” ends and the underbrush of the background begins.

Was this reporter shooting black and white? I know there was color film in the 70s (I’ve got all these childhood phtos that have gone largely “red” over time, but you can still tell they were originally “color”), but many of the archive photos I’ve found in newspapers I worked for were taken in black and white, especially before instant process “photo flow” machines were common and news photographers actually spent time developing photos in the darkroom.
I’d love to see the original, but if it is a black and white, it may not be any more crisp than this one.

Blobsquatch! The only person who would know anything about this photo or the subject in this photo is the person who took the photo – without the first hand account of the photographer we have no provenance and therefore no credibility.
Dudlow

I agree with #8 nothing here but a blobsquatch. The only thing that would help here is the orig. negative and the reporter who snapped the pic. W/o that not anything here that is concrete Evid. of real or hoax.

your all missing a very importiant find. this is the only know photo of a shapshifting bigfoot just starting to shape shift. dont believe me. just ask beckjord. after all he is a legend in his own mind. the size of the mind or legend are up for discussion as the actual working brain cells are limited.

The photo is vintage, and the subject area was obviously cropped and enlarged. The original negative would show that the photographer was quite a distance from the subject. There are sufficient details in the enlargement to conclude:
1) The right arm is slightly elevated, causing it to look shorter than it actually is;
2) The right hand is clearly shown to be just that, a primate hand;
3) The position of the arms, legs and torso are reflect a large primate in hurried bipedal travel,
3) The overall shape of the body is that of a large primate; and,
3) There is nothing in the photo that indicates the figure is one type of primate disguised as another.

Is the photo clear evidence of the sasquatch? No. Is it a blobsquatch? Certainly not!

While photographs of the “Mud Men” from the area of Chimbu, Papua New Guinea have always been interesting to look at, I believe the unrelated photo that Craig posted shows a creature which is more intriguing and more enigmatic.

If you run the photo through an image package and resize it down to about 25% it looks like a statue in a garden, possibly a Satyr? I don’t think the pic is a bigfoot, maybe a bigmess or a bighoax, but if that’s the case, why has this only surfaced now?

I’d say that someone was sorting out old photos, found a blurry photo of a ‘something’ and decided given the propensity for the weird these days, decided it was a bigfoot. As I say, I’m hedging my bets its a garden statue, in a ‘Greek Thinker’ pose, hence the arms, but I do agree the arms are the same length they are just badly contrasted and can’t easily be made out.

Sorry, computer went weird – maybe looking at it in a higher res (i.e. resized pic down) it might be an aborigine (sp?)? It has that ‘bushman’ sort of face and hair – perhaps he was hunting and knelt down. Its probably the most plausable theory if this is ‘humanoid/hominid’.

Kind of a weird image if you ask me. If you turn it upside down it sort of resembles a fallen tree with the branches which normally face up, now facing down creating the arm. Which could also explain the broken branches all over the foreground. Another concern of mine is that the “head” is actually a shape created by the outline of the tree on the right of the picture. to illustrate my opinion I went and colored it quickly to see if I could test the theory. But… like I said.. only a theory. A link to the picture I made can be found here.